Re: [Marxism] The criticism of religion [was: RE: Vnzla:reasonstobeoptimistic]

[Haines Brown <brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Haines Brown wrote:

> > The problem with this whole line of argument is that it is
> > empiricist and therefore incorrigibly subjective. How much money
> > does it take to corrupt a person?
> 
> You can start with Fundrace 2008 at
> http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/.  Just enter the names of some
> rich bastards and see for yourself:

I was not questioning the empirical fact (the association of the
Fortune 500 with the principle source of Democratic Party income), but
the method used to arrive at your conclusion.

I would be tempted to go on at great length to illustrate how our
choice of our units of analysis affects our conclusions, how our
decision to include or exclude certain factors that we know to be
present does the same, how a reification of conceptual wholes to serve
as the nexus of causal relations can lead us astray. There are serious
problems when we try to infer a causal relation from a Humean
"constant conjuncture" and particularly when we try to infer a causal
relation based on a singular conjuncture, which is the case in human
affairs. As a result, we are at best only able to generate speculative
hypotheses. These must be somehow be validated so that they are
elevated to the status of a theory that can be constructively
debated. However, I assume all this is well understood and generally
agreed upon.

I don't wish to appear obtuse. The correlation you point to is
probably true. That the Democratic Party is in the pocket of the
Fortune 500 seems true to some extent. That the Green Party is not is
perhaps also true. However, if you infer that the Green Party is
therefore not a capitalist Party, then I have a problem. If you infer
that the intervention of the Fortune 500 into politics is simply the
intervention of a reified "capitalism", then I have a problem with
that as well.

Let me expand a little on this point. I've no particular knowledge of
these things, but I presume that much of what goes on consists of
principally two kinds of activity: a) lobbying to encourage the
passage of favorable legislation, b) contributions to encourage the
election of "friendly" candidates.  How are these two activities
specific to capitalism? As for the first, what is "favorable" is often
what favors one corporation over others or one state over some
other. Such a promotion of a particular interest is not specific to
capitalism and not a feature of capitalism up to a point it still
promotes competition. As for lobbying, that is the right and even duty
of all citizens. The difference here is that it is facilitated by the
wealth and connections enjoyed by the big capitalist. But the
advantages of wealth and connections are an effect of capitalism, not
part of capitalism itself. Seldom is the object of these efforts the
promotion of capitalism per se, but of particular interests.

I may push my points a little excessively here, but my aim is only to
illustrate what I mean by the danger of empiricism and
reification. Reification tends to underestimate empirical constraints:
what may actually be a sectional or a private interest is taken to be
an expression of an abstract whole. Empiricism tends to disregard the
role of unobservables such as causal relations and a system structure
that modifies the effects of causes. My basic contention is that we
can't debate what's going on in political life without an adequate
explanation of the dynamics of the capitalist system. Outside this
context that warrants our units, our choice of factors, and causal
connections, a functionalist or a factor analysis of a situation
carries little weight.

-- 
 
       Haines Brown, KB1GRM

         
        

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism